What's the difference, in your mind, between my "they're all about" and your "I've never heard" except semantics? You gave your experience being around conservatives, I gave mine. Yours isn't better than mine, it's different. How much of that's down to perception is, as always, part of the equation.
Good call. Guilty as charged. I'll take my own medicine and be more careful about using superlatives.
I think we've taken a step toward being able to have a discussion, because we've identified something that causes it to stall?
Also - honesty isn't the opposite of generally. That's a bit of wordplay that may be completely unconscious on your part, but no, I don't "need" to speak more honestly than I'm already speaking.
Then again, maybe we haven't taken a step.
No, my own guilt noted and exposed, I'm going to double down here. It wasn't fully honest for me to say I'd never heard a conservative say X. Rather, because that has not been the
rule for me, I used language to generalize away the exceptions, thereby forcing that I take a defensive posture in regards to what you were saying. When the truth—honesty, not generalizations—compels me that I
know what you're talking about; that there are some MAGA believers who think and talk along the lines you offered. I
do agree with that. So, yes, generalizing destroyed honesty here—and prevented discourse.
So I'm going to risk further censure by asserting still that we need—all of us—to move away from generalizing toward honesty. If you feel that your saying what you said about the MAGA faction was not a generalization, but was 100% honest, then clearly I'm not talking about you in that instance, as you did not generalize.
Further, I'd offer that our speech drift from a focus on factions (people) toward principles, ideas, issues. Yes, I assert that we need to do that. If you feel that this assertion is not appropriate, perhaps instead of offering simple disagreement in reply, you could offer why such a shift in focus is not needed, not appropriate, etc?
And no, I don't "need" to stop seeing anyone as belonging to a political faction,
I would reword what I said: "We need to stop [focusing on] one another as belonging to political factions."
I see and reocognize faction and many obviously want to see themselves as belonging to a political faction. That's literally what MAGA hats are meant to do. They're an intentional identifier. Maybe it would be more helpful not to tell people what they "need" to do, just share what you feel the need to do.
That's just it; politics in a democratic society is
each of us having an opinion on what
everyone should do—and
discussing those opinions, not telling persons to keep their expressions confined to themselves. If you feel that God has no place in schools and you seek to have the view effected in society, that affects those who believe otherwise, and vice versa. If you apply to yourself the suggestion you gave to me you'll stand up and say "this is what
I need to do." I doubt that would have much effect on the question of God in schools. Correct me if I err, but you have many ideas about what we
all should do in our nation. Is this not correct? Functional democratic government is based on what we all agree to do; dysfunctional democratic government is based on what the faction in power determines we should do (which seems to be where we are today). Clearly, then, if we can't rid ourselves of identifying as part of a faction, our job is to engage in dialogue to see if we can arrive at the point where we all see ourselves as of
one faction and are making decisions unitedly. We can't get there if I speak only for myself.
Someone must assert a common vision and we all discuss discuss discuss until we arrive at accord. Why not me?
